BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 8 - Cilt: 5 Sayı: 8, 95 - 115, 14.07.2016

Özkal Özsoy Oğuz Bayrakçı

https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240862

Öz

Kullanıcı istek ve ihtiyaçlarını daha iyi karşılayabilecek ürünler ortaya çıkartmak isteyen endüstri tasarımcısının, ürünlerin taşıyacağı iletileri iyi oluşturması gerekmektedir. Bunun için bağlam ve amaca uygun işaretler tasarlanarak ürünlere yerleştirilmelidir. Ürün tasarımcısının çok açık işaretler taşıyan ürünler ortaya çıkartabilmesi için kullanabileceği yöntemler, detaylı şekilde işlenmiş bir konudur. Göstergebilime ait çeşitli araçlar, endüstri ürün tasarımına uygulanmaya çalışılmıştır. Eğretileme bu amaç için kullanılırlığı günümüze değin pek detaylı araştırılmamış bir kavram-araçtır. Eğretilemenin ürün biçimsel özelliklerinin belirlenmesinde kullanımı, tasarımcıya önemli olanaklar sunabilir. Yoğun olarak elektronik tabanlı modern ürünler, fiziksel özellikleri ve mekânik parça kullanımlarının az olması nedeni ile çok çeşitli şekillere rahatlıkla girebilirler. Bu da ürün tasarımcısının, teknik gereksinimlere takılmadan, eğretilemelerden istediği gibi faydalanarak, sahibi ile duygusal kültürel bağlar kuran, kullanıcı dostu ürünler tasarlayabilmesini kolaylaştıracaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

endüstri ürün tasarım Eğretileme Benzetme

Kaynakça

  • A.I.A. Costa, D. Schoolmeester, M. Dekker ve W.M.F. Jongen. 2003. Exploring the Use of Consumer Collages in Product Design. Product Design & Quality Management.Wageningen University.
  • Appleton. Bloch, Peter H., Brunel, Frederic F., and Arnold Todd J. 2003. “Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement”. Journal of Consumer Research. 29 (March), 551-65.
  • Aubry, D. and Vavik, T. 1992: Produktdesign, Barthes, Roland ([1970] 1988). The Old Rhetoric: An Aide-Memoire. In The Semiotic Challenge. trans. Richard Howard.
  • Bayrakç›, O. 2004. Ça¤dafl ‹letiflim Kuramlar› Aç›s›ndan Tasar›mda ‹letiflimsel Modeller. Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi.
  • Butter, Reinhart. 1993. “Where Meanings Escape Functions,” Design Management Journal. 4(2), 30-37. ‘Design Is Making Sense (of Things)’,” Design Issues, 5(2), 9-39.
  • Butter, Reinhart. 1984. “Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form” Innovation. 3(2): 4-9.
  • Carl-Gustaf Lundholm. 2003. The Use of Metaphors in Product Design. Department of Product Design. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
  • Dan Saffer. 2005. The Role of Metaphor in Interaction Design. The School of Design. Carnegie Mellon University.
  • Dumas, A. 1999. Building totems: Metaphormaking in Prod uct Development. Design Management Journal. Winter.
  • Dumas, Angela. Winter 1994. Building Totems: MetaphorMaking in Product Development. Design Management Journal. 71-82.
  • Feldman, Jerome A. 2006. From Molecule to Metaphor. A Neural Theory of Language. The Massachusetts. MIT Press.
  • Fouro boros, 2009. Brain, Metaphor, Archetype, Brand. http://www.alchemysite.com/blog/brain_brand_01.html Fu-Yuan, Li, 2005. Made in Taiwan: Using Metaphor as a Design Strategy.
  • Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer and Roedder John, Deborah. 1997. Consumer Learning by Analogy: A model of Internal Knowledge Transfer. Journal of Consumer Research. 24 (December): 266-84.
  • Holbrook, Morris B. and Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1982. The Experiential Aspects of Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research. 9 (September):132-140.
  • Hong Cheng. 2006. The Study of Cultural Interface in Taiwan Aboriginal Twin-Cup. Postgraduate School of Industrial Design. Chang Gung University.
  • Kawama, Tetsuo 1990. A Semiotic Approach to Product Forms. In The Semiotic Web.
  • Krippendorff, Butter. 1984. Product Semantics: Exploring the symbolic qualities of form.Innovation. vol 3 no 2.
  • Kristen T. Rosenzweig. 2007. Speaking Metaphorically in Product Design. B.F.A, School of Design, the Art Institute of Chicago.
  • Lakoff and Johnsson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago press.
  • MacLean, Paul, 1952. The Triune Brain.
  • Marcus, Aaron. 1998. Metaphor Design in User Interfaces. Journal of Computer Documentation, Vol. 22. No. 2.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F. and Mick, David Glen. 1992. On Resonance: A CriticalPluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research. 19 (September): 180-97.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F. and Mick, David Glen. 1996. Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language. Journal of Consumer Research. 22 (March): 424-38.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F. and Mick, David Glen. 1999. Visual Rhetoric in Advertising: Text-Interpretive, Experimental, and Reader-Response Analyses. Journal of Consumer Research. 26 (June): 3754.
  • Michl, Jan. 1995. Form Follows What? The Modernist Notion of Function as A Carte Blanche. Magazine of the Faculty of Architecture & Town Planning, Yechnion, Israel. Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, 10, 20-31.
  • Mick, David Glen, Burroughs, James E., Hetzel, Patrick, and Brannen, Mary Yoko. 2004. Pursuing the Meaning of Meaning in the Commercial World: An International Review of Marketing and Consumer Research Founded on Semiotics. Semiotica. 152-1/4, 1-74.
  • Moalosi, Richie, Popovic Vesna ve Hickling-Hudson, Anne, 2007. Culture-orientated Product Design. Industrial Design and Technology Department, University of Botswana.
  • Monö. 1997. Design for product understanding. Stockholm: Liber.
  • Narayanan, Srinivas ve Bailey,David. 1997. Characterizing Motor Control Schemas.
  • Petty, Richard E., Cacioppo, John T., and Schumann, David. 1983. Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal of Consumer Research. 10 (September): 135-46.
  • Reddy, Michael J. 1993. The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language About Language. Metaphor and Thought. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press.
  • Roehm, Michelle L. and Sternthal, Brain. 2001. The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies. Journal of Consumer Research. 28 (September): 257-72.
  • Russell, Bob and Novosedlik Will. 1998. Design Matters: New iMac Apotheosis of Lateral Thinking. Strategy. 25, 22-23.
  • Sara Ilstedt Hjelm. 2002. Semiotics in Product Design, ISSN 1403 - 0721 (print) 1403 - 073 X (Web/PDF), September.
  • Saussure. 1916/1983. Course in General Linguistics, London: Fontana/Collins.
  • Unnava, H. Rao and Robert E. Burnkrant. 1991. An Imagery Processing View of the Role of Pictures in Printed Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research. 28 (May), 226-31.
  • Vervaeke, John ve M. Kennedy, John. 2004. Conceptual Metaphor and Abstract Thought. Psychology University of Toronto.
  • Veryer, Robert W. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley. 1999. The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs. Journal of Consumer Research. 24 (March), 374-94.
  • Veryzer, Robert W. 1997. Measuring Consumer Perceptions in the Product Development Process. Design Management Journal. (Spring): 66-71.
  • Xiaoyan Deng. 2006. Exploring Metaphoric Product Design. Marketing Wharton U. Penn.
  • http://www.rhetorosaurus.co.uk/rhetoric/base/essay-aristotleon-metaphor.aspx
  • Buccino G., Binkofski F., Fink G.R., Fadiga L., Fogassi L.,
  • Gallese V., Seitz R.J., Zilles K., Rizzolatti G., and Freund H.-J. 2001. Action Observation Activities Premotor and Parietal Areas in a Somatotopic Manner: An fMRI Study. European Journal of Neuroscience. 13:400-404.
  • Hawkins J. and Balekslee S. 2004. On Intelligence. Times Books. bölüm 2 ve 3.
  • Tettamanti M., Buccino B., Saccuman M., Gallese V., Danna M., Scifo P., Fazio F., Rizzolatti G., Cappa S., and Perani D. 2005. Listening to Action-Related Sentences Activates FrontoParietal Motor Circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 17:273-281.
  • Gentner D., Bowdle B., Wolf P., Boronat C. 2001. Metaphor is Like Analogy. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. 199-253. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  • Shank, Gary and Gleber, Conrad. 2002. Six Metaphors in Search of The Internet. The Journal of Natural Inquiry & Refective Practice. Vol. 17, No. 1. Fall.
  • Koestler A., The Act of Creation, a non fiction book, 1964 Erickson, T.D. 1990. Working with Interface Metaphors. In The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Edited by B. Laurel. 65-73. Addison-Wesley.
  • Kristin H. Lower Gautvik, Towards A Product Language: Theories and methodology regarding aesthetic analysis of design products.
  • http://design.ntnu.no/forskning/artikler/2001/ Gautvik_I.pdf (2001).

Metaphoric Expressions in Industrial Design and Their Methodical Use as a Design Approach

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 8 - Cilt: 5 Sayı: 8, 95 - 115, 14.07.2016

Özkal Özsoy Oğuz Bayrakçı

https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240862

Öz

The industrial designer who wants to design a product that will fulfill the needs and desires of a modern consumer should concentrate well on the messages his or her products shall convey. For this purpose, signs which are suitable for the context and designer's intentions must be created and used on the product very carefully. The methods that can be used by a product designer to create products with clear signs have been the subject of many researches. One of the conceptual tools which hasn't been academically researched in detail so far is the metaphor. Usage of metaphors in electronic products can give many opportunities to the industrial designer. Though they don't incorporate any mechanical parts and their physical properties are suitable, electronic systems can take many different shapes and fit into many different volumes. This gives the designer a good opportunity to give whatever shape necessary to his or her product by using different metaphors

Anahtar Kelimeler

Industry Product Design Resembelance

Kaynakça

  • A.I.A. Costa, D. Schoolmeester, M. Dekker ve W.M.F. Jongen. 2003. Exploring the Use of Consumer Collages in Product Design. Product Design & Quality Management.Wageningen University.
  • Appleton. Bloch, Peter H., Brunel, Frederic F., and Arnold Todd J. 2003. “Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement”. Journal of Consumer Research. 29 (March), 551-65.
  • Aubry, D. and Vavik, T. 1992: Produktdesign, Barthes, Roland ([1970] 1988). The Old Rhetoric: An Aide-Memoire. In The Semiotic Challenge. trans. Richard Howard.
  • Bayrakç›, O. 2004. Ça¤dafl ‹letiflim Kuramlar› Aç›s›ndan Tasar›mda ‹letiflimsel Modeller. Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi.
  • Butter, Reinhart. 1993. “Where Meanings Escape Functions,” Design Management Journal. 4(2), 30-37. ‘Design Is Making Sense (of Things)’,” Design Issues, 5(2), 9-39.
  • Butter, Reinhart. 1984. “Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form” Innovation. 3(2): 4-9.
  • Carl-Gustaf Lundholm. 2003. The Use of Metaphors in Product Design. Department of Product Design. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
  • Dan Saffer. 2005. The Role of Metaphor in Interaction Design. The School of Design. Carnegie Mellon University.
  • Dumas, A. 1999. Building totems: Metaphormaking in Prod uct Development. Design Management Journal. Winter.
  • Dumas, Angela. Winter 1994. Building Totems: MetaphorMaking in Product Development. Design Management Journal. 71-82.
  • Feldman, Jerome A. 2006. From Molecule to Metaphor. A Neural Theory of Language. The Massachusetts. MIT Press.
  • Fouro boros, 2009. Brain, Metaphor, Archetype, Brand. http://www.alchemysite.com/blog/brain_brand_01.html Fu-Yuan, Li, 2005. Made in Taiwan: Using Metaphor as a Design Strategy.
  • Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer and Roedder John, Deborah. 1997. Consumer Learning by Analogy: A model of Internal Knowledge Transfer. Journal of Consumer Research. 24 (December): 266-84.
  • Holbrook, Morris B. and Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1982. The Experiential Aspects of Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research. 9 (September):132-140.
  • Hong Cheng. 2006. The Study of Cultural Interface in Taiwan Aboriginal Twin-Cup. Postgraduate School of Industrial Design. Chang Gung University.
  • Kawama, Tetsuo 1990. A Semiotic Approach to Product Forms. In The Semiotic Web.
  • Krippendorff, Butter. 1984. Product Semantics: Exploring the symbolic qualities of form.Innovation. vol 3 no 2.
  • Kristen T. Rosenzweig. 2007. Speaking Metaphorically in Product Design. B.F.A, School of Design, the Art Institute of Chicago.
  • Lakoff and Johnsson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago press.
  • MacLean, Paul, 1952. The Triune Brain.
  • Marcus, Aaron. 1998. Metaphor Design in User Interfaces. Journal of Computer Documentation, Vol. 22. No. 2.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F. and Mick, David Glen. 1992. On Resonance: A CriticalPluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research. 19 (September): 180-97.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F. and Mick, David Glen. 1996. Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language. Journal of Consumer Research. 22 (March): 424-38.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F. and Mick, David Glen. 1999. Visual Rhetoric in Advertising: Text-Interpretive, Experimental, and Reader-Response Analyses. Journal of Consumer Research. 26 (June): 3754.
  • Michl, Jan. 1995. Form Follows What? The Modernist Notion of Function as A Carte Blanche. Magazine of the Faculty of Architecture & Town Planning, Yechnion, Israel. Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, 10, 20-31.
  • Mick, David Glen, Burroughs, James E., Hetzel, Patrick, and Brannen, Mary Yoko. 2004. Pursuing the Meaning of Meaning in the Commercial World: An International Review of Marketing and Consumer Research Founded on Semiotics. Semiotica. 152-1/4, 1-74.
  • Moalosi, Richie, Popovic Vesna ve Hickling-Hudson, Anne, 2007. Culture-orientated Product Design. Industrial Design and Technology Department, University of Botswana.
  • Monö. 1997. Design for product understanding. Stockholm: Liber.
  • Narayanan, Srinivas ve Bailey,David. 1997. Characterizing Motor Control Schemas.
  • Petty, Richard E., Cacioppo, John T., and Schumann, David. 1983. Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal of Consumer Research. 10 (September): 135-46.
  • Reddy, Michael J. 1993. The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language About Language. Metaphor and Thought. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press.
  • Roehm, Michelle L. and Sternthal, Brain. 2001. The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies. Journal of Consumer Research. 28 (September): 257-72.
  • Russell, Bob and Novosedlik Will. 1998. Design Matters: New iMac Apotheosis of Lateral Thinking. Strategy. 25, 22-23.
  • Sara Ilstedt Hjelm. 2002. Semiotics in Product Design, ISSN 1403 - 0721 (print) 1403 - 073 X (Web/PDF), September.
  • Saussure. 1916/1983. Course in General Linguistics, London: Fontana/Collins.
  • Unnava, H. Rao and Robert E. Burnkrant. 1991. An Imagery Processing View of the Role of Pictures in Printed Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research. 28 (May), 226-31.
  • Vervaeke, John ve M. Kennedy, John. 2004. Conceptual Metaphor and Abstract Thought. Psychology University of Toronto.
  • Veryer, Robert W. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley. 1999. The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs. Journal of Consumer Research. 24 (March), 374-94.
  • Veryzer, Robert W. 1997. Measuring Consumer Perceptions in the Product Development Process. Design Management Journal. (Spring): 66-71.
  • Xiaoyan Deng. 2006. Exploring Metaphoric Product Design. Marketing Wharton U. Penn.
  • http://www.rhetorosaurus.co.uk/rhetoric/base/essay-aristotleon-metaphor.aspx
  • Buccino G., Binkofski F., Fink G.R., Fadiga L., Fogassi L.,
  • Gallese V., Seitz R.J., Zilles K., Rizzolatti G., and Freund H.-J. 2001. Action Observation Activities Premotor and Parietal Areas in a Somatotopic Manner: An fMRI Study. European Journal of Neuroscience. 13:400-404.
  • Hawkins J. and Balekslee S. 2004. On Intelligence. Times Books. bölüm 2 ve 3.
  • Tettamanti M., Buccino B., Saccuman M., Gallese V., Danna M., Scifo P., Fazio F., Rizzolatti G., Cappa S., and Perani D. 2005. Listening to Action-Related Sentences Activates FrontoParietal Motor Circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 17:273-281.
  • Gentner D., Bowdle B., Wolf P., Boronat C. 2001. Metaphor is Like Analogy. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. 199-253. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  • Shank, Gary and Gleber, Conrad. 2002. Six Metaphors in Search of The Internet. The Journal of Natural Inquiry & Refective Practice. Vol. 17, No. 1. Fall.
  • Koestler A., The Act of Creation, a non fiction book, 1964 Erickson, T.D. 1990. Working with Interface Metaphors. In The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Edited by B. Laurel. 65-73. Addison-Wesley.
  • Kristin H. Lower Gautvik, Towards A Product Language: Theories and methodology regarding aesthetic analysis of design products.
  • http://design.ntnu.no/forskning/artikler/2001/ Gautvik_I.pdf (2001).
Toplam 50 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Diğer ID JA39ZZ95GV
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Özkal Özsoy Bu kişi benim

Oğuz Bayrakçı Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 14 Temmuz 2016
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2009 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 8 - Cilt: 5 Sayı: 8

Kaynak Göster

APA Özsoy, Ö., & Bayrakçı, O. (2016). Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı. Tasarım + Kuram, 5(8), 95-115. https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240862
AMA Özsoy Ö, Bayrakçı O. Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı. Tasarım + Kuram. Temmuz 2016;5(8):95-115. doi:10.23835/tasarimkuram.240862
Chicago Özsoy, Özkal, ve Oğuz Bayrakçı. “Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar Ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı Olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı”. Tasarım + Kuram 5, sy. 8 (Temmuz 2016): 95-115. https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240862.
EndNote Özsoy Ö, Bayrakçı O (01 Temmuz 2016) Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı. Tasarım + Kuram 5 8 95–115.
IEEE Ö. Özsoy ve O. Bayrakçı, “Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı”, Tasarım + Kuram, c. 5, sy. 8, ss. 95–115, 2016, doi: 10.23835/tasarimkuram.240862.
ISNAD Özsoy, Özkal - Bayrakçı, Oğuz. “Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar Ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı Olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı”. Tasarım + Kuram 5/8 (Temmuz 2016), 95-115. https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240862.
JAMA Özsoy Ö, Bayrakçı O. Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı. Tasarım + Kuram. 2016;5:95–115.
MLA Özsoy, Özkal ve Oğuz Bayrakçı. “Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar Ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı Olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı”. Tasarım + Kuram, c. 5, sy. 8, 2016, ss. 95-115, doi:10.23835/tasarimkuram.240862.
Vancouver Özsoy Ö, Bayrakçı O. Eğretilemeli Anlatımlar ve Tasarım Yaklaşımı olarak Yöntemli Kullanımı. Tasarım + Kuram. 2016;5(8):95-115.